Aptitude Personality and Interactional Behaviour an exploratory study
Aptitude, Personality, and Interactional Behaviour (an exploratory study) Nadia Mifka-Profozic - Euro. SLA – Jyväskylä August 2016
Outline n Rationale & background to the study: theoretical, empirical, methodological aspects n Research question and hypotheses n Participants, setting, instruments n Results n Discussion n Questions, Comments: Where from here? 2
Theoretical background: aptitude n Role of cognitive and affective factors in language learning has been well established (e. g. Dörnyei, 2005; Granena & Long, 2013; Robinson, 2002, 2007; Skehan, 1986) n Revival of interest for research into cognitive IDs in recent years (namely language aptitude and working memory) n Traditionally, since Carroll’s Modern Language Aptitude Test battery (1959), aptitude has been associated with the cognitive abilities measured by the specific tests, rather than with a theoretically developed and explained construct (Kormos, 2013). 3
Theoretical background: aptitude n Although aptitude has been shown to play a major role in adult L 2 learning, there are studies suggesting that the influence of aptitude may depend on the learning conditions. n Li’s meta analysis (2015) involving 33 studies with more than 3000 learners showed an overall low association with L 2 grammar learning (r =. 31). n 17 studies investigated the correlations between aptitude and ultimate L 2 attainment while 16 interactional studies investigated the interface between aptitude and the effectiveness of instructional treatment. n Aptitude was more strongly correlated with explicit treatments than implicit treatments, and more implicated in initial stages of L 2 development 4
Aptitude and Interaction n Importance of interaction for language learning: The Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983, 1996) n Systematic investigations in the framework of Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2001, 2003, 2005), where the role of aptitude is investigated in relation to task complexity, task conditions and difficulty. In Robinson’s theoretically motivated model cognitive resources and abilities are combined into aptitude complexes. n Research into cognitive demands and motivational impact of different task characteristics and their effects on speech production during task performance (e. g. Gilabert, Baron, & Llanes, 2009; Gurzynski-Weiss & Revesz, 2012; Kim, 2009; Kormos & Trebits, 2012) 5
Empirical considerations q A limited number of studies that focus on the process of task performance itself and learner engagement: how learners collaborate when working in pairs small groups (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Garcia Mayo, 2002; Ramirez –Esparza et al, 2012; Storch, 2002, 2007) q Research in general education has shown that a complex combination of group composition and student ability governs each student ‘s experience in the group – predictors of student experience include ability, personality, gender, ethnic background (Webb, 1989) 6
Theoretical background: personality n Role of personality in language learning has been discussed less frequently than cognitive or affective learner variables. n In order to better understand explain the individual differences it is important that learner variables such as the different dimensions of personality be assessed (Verhoven & Vermeer, 2002) n A very limited number of studies actually attempted to investigate the role and the scope of influence that personal characteristics have in the process of language learning. n The role of extraversion has been acknowledged by language learning researchers. n Extraversion may not be a predictor of success in L 2 learning, but it does affect both L 1 and L 2 production n A “strong prima facie” link with language learning (Dewaele, 2005) 7
Methodological considerations n Multiple calls over the past years, to attempt using the best of quantitative and qualitative approaches and combine them for the sake of research thoroughness and truthfulness in applied linguistics (e. g. Dewaele, 2005; Lazaraton, 2000). n King and Mackey (2016) made a case for “layering”, advocating the approach which would organically link the advantages of qualitatively presenting and describing the processes in language learning with the need to generalise, categorise and theorise. 8
Research question & participants n How do individual differences in language aptitude and personality influence student interactional behaviour during the work on two different tasks in groups of four? Ø a text-reconstruction task (type of dictogloss) Ø a decision-making task Participants: Ø 16 second year University students of English major, proficiency level B 2 -C 1 of CEFR ( the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages), Croatian native speakers Ø Mean age 21, on average 10 years of English instruction at school (711) 9
Hypotheses: n A text reconstruction task would require students to employ their memory resources, so there will be stronger association between the participants cognitive abilities (aptitude) and their interactional behaviour n An open, more flexible decision-making task would require the participants to employ their resources which do not necessarily have to be related to aptitude and memory 10
Dependent variables & operationalisations Quantitative and qualitative measures as dependent variables: Ø Number of words Ø Number of turns Ø Semantic expansions in the text-reconstruction task (any new detail that contributes to reconstruction of the newspaper article that was previously read, and helps move the task along) Ø Semantic expansions in the decision-making task (any new idea that contributes to the development and completion of the task) Ø Negotiation moves which help develop and successfully complete the task (clarification requests, confirmation checks) 11
Instruments: Language Aptitude LLAMA n Loosely based on MLAT n Developed by Paul Meara (2005), Swansea University www. lognostics. co. uk/tools/llama/index. htm n Increasingly used in research projects n Language neutral (independent of L 1 of the test-takers), gender neutral, not suitable for younger learners. n Granena (2013) validated the test with 186 participants of different L 1. n Rogers (2014): Significant effect for highest formal qualification (N=135) for: vocabulary (B), sound/symbol (E), and grammar inferencing (F). 12
Instruments: LLAMA for Aptitude n LLAMA B = vocabulary measure n n LLAMA D = sound recognition n n Tests if one can recognise short stretches of spoken language that one was exposed to a short while previously LLAMA E = sound-symbol correspondence n n Measures the ability to learn relatively large amounts of vocabulary in relatively short space of time One has to work out the relationship between the sounds and writing system LLAMA F = grammatical inferencing test n Presented with sentences in an unknown language, one has to work out the grammatical rules operating in an unknown language 13
Instruments: Personality Traits n The NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (Costa, P. T. & Mc. Crae, R. R. , 1992, revised in 2004) n Personality inventory designed to assess the five factors or dimensions of the five factor model (FFM) of personality n Neuroticism n Extraversion n Openness to experience n Agreeableness n Conscientiousness n Uses 60 items (12 items per domain) n Generally high reliability, cross-culturally stable 14
Text-reconstruction task n P 1: so how do I start the sentence? n P 4: in New York city n P 3: it was Thursday afternoon (. ) when the explosion hit n P 1: so it was Thursday afternoon in New York City (. ) I think that will do (0. 5) because (. ) three days later on Sunday n P 3 : it was a kind of building (. ) with the sushi bar = n P 2: = sushi restaurant n P 4: I think they mentioned (. ) the guests (. ) n P 3: yeah n P 2: I think they mentioned (. ) yeah (. ) they mentioned [firefighters] n P 3: [yeah but I think] it’s only in the second section n P 1: first they said something about emergency services and about the bad plumbing or something like that n P 2: yeah something with gas pipes and plumbing [li: ke] n P 3: [constructing and] then the fire caught the um. . several other buildings 15
Text-reconstruction task n P 1: yeah. . n P 3: three buildings n P 1: or was it four? n P 3: three buildings [in New York City] n P 2: n P 3: four? n P 2: four. n P 4: ok but the first was the sushi restaurant n P 1: [yep] n P 2: [yeah] n P 1: ok let’s just see the first sentence (. ) it was (. ) in New York City when the explosion happened or what (0. 5) n P 2: when the explosion in the sushi bar happened n P 3: it wasn’t the sushi bar (. ) it was the building and then the sushi bar was on part of it n P 2: yeah n (0. 6) n P 1: so? n P 2: when the building exploded n P 3: yes [I think it was four] 16
Decision – making task n P 3: ok lets make a magazine about the new video games that get released each month n P 1: ok I know my role. . testing (h h h)… n P 4: so ok. . you agree? n P 1: yeah sure n P 2: ok (. ) so: : area video games (0. 4) [name] n P 1: n P 2: yes n P 3: what? n (0. 5) n P 1: I don’t think it should be centred on one game (. ) so maybe more general (. ) game um something (. ) more general n P 1: gamer girl (h h h) n P 3: yeah we can make a magazine for girl gamers n P 3: sort of n P 1: we should make something general that is in all games n P 3: catching cars n (h h h) [shall we ] give it a name? 17
Instruments: Personality Traits n P 1: new wave n P 2: new wave…yeah that sounds good n P 1: like new wave of games you can connect with (0. 4) I don’t know (h h h) n P 3: new wave (. ) it is n P 2: ok lets not waste too much time on that (0. 4) the name (. ) we have other things n P 3: or level (. ) or next level n P 1: level up n P 2: agreed n P 1: ok (. ) what type of magazine? are we reviewing games? n P 3: reviewing n P 1: we review other games, yeah n (0. 6) n (h h h) n P 1: introducing new consoles n P 2: yeah sure (h h h) n P 3: new (. ) yeah n P 1: consoles and technology 18
Results - Descriptive statistics: Aptitude Mean SD Min Max 52. 00 13. 12 30. 00 80. 00 31. 25 14. 95 10. 00 60. 00 72. 00 20. 12 30. 00 100. 00 57. 00 9. 86 20. 00 90. 00 LLAMA B Memory for vocabulary LLAMA D Recognising sound patterns LLAMA E Sound-symbol recognition LLAMA F Grammatical inferencing 19
Descriptive statistics: NEO-Five Factor Mean St Deviation Min Max Neuroticism 26. 65 6. 85 9. 00 37. 00 Extraversion 26. 10 6. 04 15. 00 38. 00 Openness to experience 32. 05 4. 49 23. 00 41. 00 Agreeable -ness 30. 00 4. 75 20. 00 40. 00 Conscientiousness 29. 25 5. 83 21. 00 40. 00 20
Results: Descriptive statistics dependent variables Mean SD Words Task 1 233. 9 149. 6 Words Task 2 212. 6 132. 9 Words Total 446. 5 246. 2 Turns task 1 40. 4 19. 8 Turns task 2 34. 1 20. 8 Turns total 74. 5 35. 4 Expansions task 1 - details 12. 2 6. 9 Expansions task 2 - ideas 10. 9 4. 5 21
Correlations PRO Ws T 1 Ws T 2 Ws total Ts T 1 Ts T 2 Ts total Exp T 1 Exp T 2 LLAMA B LLAMA D . 462*. 036 LLAMA E . 524*. 004 LLAMA F Apt. Comp . 545*. 014 Extravers. . 554*. 013 . 520*. 020. 538*. 016 . 537*. 016 . 492*. 026 . 473*. 032 22
Discussion n These fairly advanced learners produced only a few LRE in the text-reconstruction task n Negotiation was only meaning focused n Negotiation moves (clarification requests and confirmation checks) associated with extraversion (r= 491*. p =. 027) n Extraversion emerged as the most significant personality trait associated with interactional behaviour during the group work on task n Aptitude related only to interactional behaviour during the text-reconstruction task 23
n Where from here? 24
Thank you! THANK YOU! 25
- Slides: 25